This server has basic tool coverage for Google Forms operations with all tools properly registered and visible in src/index.ts. However, it has significant gaps in definition quality. All 5 tools have descriptions and basic input schemas with type definitions, placing it above the floor. However, descriptions are universally generic and under 100 characters, parameter descriptions lack depth and constraint information, output schemas are not documented, and there are no error handling hints or recovery guidance. The tool names are acceptable (verb_noun pattern) but the implementations show minimal LLM optimization. The server is functional but would not pass code review by a principal tool engineer due to missing schema completeness and underdocumented parameters.
Add a multiple choice question to the form
Add a text question to the form
Create a new Google Form
Get form details
Get form responses
All tool descriptions are under 100 characters and lack actionable context. LLMs cannot distinguish when to use these tools vs. similar alternatives or understand prerequisites and side effects.
Output schemas are not documented. Callers and downstream tools do not know what fields to expect from tool responses, forcing the LLM to guess or reason through API responses.
Parameter 'required' in add_text_question and add_multiple_choice_question lacks clarity. The description says 'optional, default is false' but does not explain what 'required' means in context (required field for responders? required parameter for the tool?). This ambiguity invites wrong usage.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | F | 44 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | F | 43 | - | v1 |
Error handling returns raw error messages without recovery guidance. When a form creation fails, the LLM is told 'Failed to create form: <error message>' but not what to do next (retry? check credentials? try a different approach?).
No pagination support documented or implemented for get_form_responses. Large form response sets could overwhelm context or result in token waste. No limit, offset, or cursor parameters are present.
Tool descriptions do not indicate which operations are write operations (destructive) vs. read-only. The LLM cannot reason about idempotency or whether an operation is safe to retry without side effects.